The Life Aquatic

Fishooks13

Out of all of Anderson's films the life aquatic seems to have polarized opinion more than any of his other features, which have generally been met with widespread critical acclaim.


Now, while I do enjoy Anderson, I wouldn't be his biggest fan. But the Life Aquatic is one of my favorite films.

The bright imagery, the quirky shots, the dead pan humor, the soundtrack and the sheer ridiculous nature of it all add up to one of the most enjoyable film experiences I've had.

So why was it not appreciated in the same way Moonrise Kingdom was? Which is very similar in style

enda1

I thought it was wonderful also. Such great cinematography and cast. I think he's a sensational director.
Loved William Defoe in it in particular.

Mickeroo

I'm a big fan of Andersons films. Life Aquatic doesn't reach the heights of Royal Tenenbaums or Rushmore for me but in terms of laughs its probably his funniest film imo. There are parts of it that still make me chuckle when I think of them, like when they "storm" the island for example. The combination of the soundtrack and the deadpan delivery from the cast just crack me up.

I can see why it wasn't as well received/liked as Moonlight Kingdom though. Moonrise Kingdom's characters are much more likeable (lets face it, Steve is an asshole ) and the story is a lot more personal and something most people can relate to on some level.

krudler

I loved it, Jeff Goldblum is brilliant in it.

enda1

For me the ending of Moonrise Kingdom almost destroyed the film.

The kids HAD to die. Unfortunately sentimentality and assuredly Hollywood prevented the narrative necessity from prevailing

Fishooks13

I felt The Life Aquatic was just as emotive as Moonrise Kingdom, and much more fun.

The scene where they bury Ned to that Zombies song is damn emotional

Mickeroo

enda1 wrote: »

For me the ending of Moonrise Kingdom almost destroyed the film.

The kids HAD to die. Unfortunately sentimentality and assuredly Hollywood prevented the narrative necessity from prevailing

I really don't think hollywood interfered with that movie at all. Wasn't exactly a tentpole release, pretty sure Anderson made exactly the film he wanted to make. I don't think what you're suggesting would have made for a very satisfying ending anyway imho.

johnny_ultimate

I really like the film, but there's something about it that just doesn't resonate with me the way some of Anderson's other films do. He always has a deadpan / sterile delivery, but here it's almost too sterile. I think the story meanders around a tad awkwardly before it gets to the good stuff. And I don't think the characters - with the possible exception of Steve - are as well defined or even likeable as Anderson's finest creations. That's one of the reasons I think the emotional third act doesn't resonate all that strongly, as the shift in tone just doesn't sit right with me.

That's not to say there isn't a lot to love about the film. Its best scenes - the extended Ping Island rescue, Steve taking on the pirates - are some of the funniest I've ever seen. It has a brilliant soundtrack from Mark Mothersbaugh. And yeah the film is as visually quirky and inventive as ever, both in art design and cinematography. If I don't rate it as highly as Rushmore or Moonrise Kingdom, it's probably just down to strong competition.

enda1

Mickeroo wrote: »

I really don't think hollywood interfered with that movie at all. Wasn't exactly a tentpole release, pretty sure Anderson made exactly the film he wanted to make. I don't think what you're suggesting would have made for a very satisfying ending anyway imho.

Nah it needed the Romeo and Juliette treatment. I felt the ending was cowardly.

Mickeroo

enda1 wrote: »

Nah it needed the Romeo and Juliette treatment. I felt the ending was cowardly.

Unless you can find some sort of evidence that suggests Anderson was planning on

killing the main characters

at the end of the film only to be bullied out of it by the studio then I don't see how it could be called cowardly tbh.

saintsaltynuts

I just dont get his films at all.Paul Thomas Anderson on the other hand...

peteeeed

great soundtrack too

enda1

Mickeroo wrote: »

Unless you can find some sort of evidence that suggests Anderson was planning on

killing the main characters

at the end of the film only to be bullied out of it by the studio then I don't see how it could be called cowardly tbh.

I've of course no evidence, and in my first post meant to write possibly, not assuredly in fact. Sorry bout that.

What I mean by cowardly is that the box office ending was chosen by himself and Coppola. But I think that their death would have been the more artistically beautiful ending and would have suited better.

johnny_ultimate

I can't agree with the suggestion Moonrise Kingdom needed a 'tragic' ending either. There's absolutely nothing in the tone or narrative of the film that suggests that is the way the story is going IMO - indeed, Anderson has always decided on relatively uplifting endings, although occasionally with a hint of sadness.

Happy endings can be every bit as appropriate as unhappy ones - many films need to bow out on a crowdpleasing note. Moonrise Kingdom - a joyful, quirky and youthfully enthusiastic romantic comedy for the majority of its running time - definitely falls into that category.

Tonyandthewhale

Fishooks13 wrote: »

Now, while I do enjoy Anderson, I wouldn't be his biggest fan. But the Life Aquatic is one of my favorite films.

Tried this myself, worked a treat.